UK Against Fluoridation

Friday, January 31, 2014

Good advice and doesn't mention fluoride.

Medical officer of health Dr. Hazel Lynn holds up a picture of a child's teeth. Lynn said water fluoridation prevents tooth decay and is a safe practice. Others disagree. (JAMES MASTERS/QMI AGENCY)

Comment on article for fluoride boasting 60% reduction in caries with this picture to convince people fluoridation will stop this from happening.Kalliep

The dentists love to show these pictures of baby bottle teeth. The uneducated on the fraud of artificial water fluoridation are shocked and want to help the poor children so encourage the elected officials to keep putting the toxic waste in the water.

Gears2 is right on. Hazel is probably paid about $300,000 a year to push putting a toxic waste in the water that has no toxicology studies yet they are legally required. Why doesn't she do her job to protect the public and find those toxicology studies so she knows for sure that it is safe. (Secret: There are none)

Do you know that AWF is a fraud that has no toxicology studies Hazel? Why not earn your salary and produce them or not locate them and then protect the people by recommending it is stopped. It seems in my experience that dollars take priority in the lives of medical officers of health.

As a clinical psychologist for over 20 years in Missouri, including seven years as a school psychologist, I have had the responsibility to evaluate children’s intellectual ability. In interviewing parents to obtain the child’s developmental history one question routinely asked was the child’s exposure to lead.

It is well known and widely accepted in clinical and governmental agencies that lead is a neurotoxin, which has been associated with mental retardation, lower intellectual abilities, ADHD and other behavioral disorders. Lead used to be added to gasoline to prevent engine knock. Since lead has been removed from most gasoline products there has been a significant decrease in criminal behavior in the United States.

Fluorine was added to municipal drinking water beginning in the 1950s supposedly to help with the prevention of tooth decay. However, there is mounting evidence fluorine is a neurotoxin, which when elevated in drinking water can cause intellectual deficits.

Evidence from more than 100 research studies from around the world, using both human and animal subjects, has overwhelming shown that when fluorine levels increase, IQ levels decrease. At least one study has shown that pregnant mothers who consume elevated levels of fluorine can cause cognitive defects in their children.

Many cities have decided to stop fluoridating their municipal water. Locally, attempts have been made to convince the city of St. Joseph to do the same. Last year in a vote of 5 to 4, the city decided not to pursue an investigation to consider eliminating fluoride from the water supply.

What can you do? Call and write your City Council representative. Ask candidates for the council how they would vote on the fluoride cessation issue. Find a fluoride-free water supply for your children and yourself. Join the Fluoride Action Network by going to fluoridealert.org.

Washington, DC--(ENEWSPF)--January 30, 2014. With the U.S. House of Representatives’ passage of the Agriculture Act of 2014 (commonly known as the Farm Bill) yesterday, conventional farming allies and chemical agribusiness dealt a dangerous blow to children’s health protections and offered up yet another reason for consumers everywhere to support organic. The behind-closed-door amendment to the Farm Bill that appeared in neither the pre-conference House or Senate-passed versions of the Bill available to the public, orders the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ignore its ruling that levels of fluoride left in food treated with the toxic fumigant sulfuryl fluoride are unsafe for consumers everywhere, especially children and infants....................

Thursday, January 30, 2014

NEW YORK, Jan. 29, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Farm Bill that the House passed today and the Senate will vote on contains a provision that overrides a ruling by EPA that the toxic fumigant sulfuryl fluoride leaves unsafe levels of fluoride on food, reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).

The aggregate dose that children receive from these residues along with the fluoride from other sources, including fluoridated water and dental products, exceeds EPA's safe reference dose for fluoride – especially in the case of infants and children - and thus the new source is not permitted under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). With this Farm Bill provision, EPA will no longer be allowed to assess the total risk from fluoride exposure.

In 2011, after eight years of deliberation, EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs upheld objections by the Environmental Working Group, Beyond Pesticides and FAN about the use of sulfuryl fluoride on food and announced a phase-out of its use.

Now, Dow lobbyists working with a compliant Congress have slipped a provision into the Farm Bill that excludes non-pesticide sources in the aggregate calculations for sulfuryl fluoride. This not only undermines the credibility of the EPA Pesticide division but also delivers a critical blow to the FQPA, which among other things was designed to provide stronger protections for infants and children from pesticides.

"Only the U.S. and Australia apply this fumigant directly to food. The rest of the world has shown that sulfuryl fluoride is not necessary for the safe storage and handling of our food supply, given the availability of other methods - including temperature manipulation (heating and cooling), atmospheric controls (low oxygen and fumigation with carbon dioxide), biological controls (pheromones), and less toxic chemical controls (diatomaceous earth), all successfully used in organic production," said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.

Before 2004 the allowed tolerances for fluoride on certain foodstuffs was set at 7 ppm. The tolerances that will come into play if the EPA ruling to phase out sulfuryl fluoride is bypassed will allow a massive increase. This would include 70 ppm fluoride in more than 99% of all processed foods, 125 ppm in wheat flour (which goes into cookies, cakes, bread and pizza) and a staggering 900 ppm in powdered eggs. 900 ppm is just a tad below the level found in toothpaste (1000 ppm), which comes with an FDA-mandated poison warning that instructs users not to swallow. One third of the eggs sold in the U.S. come in powdered form.........

Council votes 3-2 after long, contentious debate over additive’s merits.

By Jason Schultz
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
WELLINGTON
For several hours Tuesday night, white lab coats and purple scrubs faced off against conspiracy theories and accusations based on Internet research as a debate that has raged nationwide since the 1940s resurfaced in Wellington.
After hours of heated debate between medical experts, residents and council members, the Village Council just before midnight Tuesday voted 3-2 to stop fluoridating its drinking water, effective Wednesday morning, after 14 years of adding the chemical to fight tooth decay.
The debate mostly centered on fluoride supporters saying science was on their side and opponents questioning the validity and motivations of that science.
“What if science is wrong right now?” said Councilman John Greene, who voted along with Vice Mayor Howard Coates and Councilman Matt Willhite to stop fluoridation. “I don’t see any harm in stopping this.”
The council first approved adding fluoride in 1999, said Village Engineer Bill Riebe, and started fluoridating a year later. Since then, Riebe said, the village had not received any reports of problems from health agencies or village residents related to fluoride.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention calls fluoridation of water to prevent cavities in children one of the greatest public health innovations of the past century.
More than a dozen students from Palm Beach State College’s dental hygiene program showed up in their purple scrubs to support continuing fluoridation.
But opponents called the support of fluoridation propaganda from the medical community and called fluoridation forced medical treatment.
Charlene Arcadipane argued the fluoride the village uses contains arsenic, and her husband, Lee Arcadipane, called it toxic waste from fertilizer production that is often contaminated with aluminum.
“That’s not a conspiracy, that’s a fact,” Lee Arcadipane said.
Riebe said arsenic was below detectable levels and village water meets state and federal standards. Fluoride supporters argued that the village should rely on medical experts, not people who surf the Internet and come up with conspiracy theories, to tell them whether the water is safe to drink.
“Use your heads, man,” said fluoride supporter and Wellington resident Ian Blake.
Phil Bilger, dental director for the Palm Beach County Health Department, said he didn’t consider fluoride a “drug” and no valid scientific studies prove fluoride causes any health problems.
“You can find all kinds of things on the Internet,” Bilger said.
Councilwoman Anne Gerwig said some of the information coming from opponent groups like the Fluoride Action Network was manipulated and “manufactured,” which made it hard to trust.
“Right now all the information we have based on science says we’re not doing something bad. We’re doing something beneficial,” Gerwig said.
Mayor Bob Margolis said the science is clear that fluoridated water reduces cavities.
“You can decide based on your feelings, but I will decide based on science and evidence,” Margolis said.
Coates said he did not doubt the positive health benefits but he objected to people being forced to ingest a chemical.
“I don’t think we can dispense with personal responsibility in this country,” Coates said.

You just got home a new pup! Like every new owner, you are as excited about its well being and have been following all the possible routine for its health. You have even started buying food that’s nutritious; you just set a schedule for walks along with your new pet. It’s all good. You scheduled your first check up with the vet who gave your new member an injection that will save it from millions of diseases. All sounds good but have you noticed that this new pup you just got home is just like a new born baby. Its teeth, like normal baby, are teething and he is biting into everything that he can see. Yes, it’s time you visited the dentist and went through a routine dental check up. It is essential given your pup will have fully grown teeth in no time and then the infections begin. You will never know the pain, as your pup will not be able to express it to you. So, you will need to take care of these things right from the beginning......

The Right Paste

The Right Paste Human teeth are different from a pup’s teeth. So, make sure you don’t use your toothpaste on your pup. It won’t help him much. You could shop for some dog’s toothpaste. Visit a pet store and find a paste that does not contain minerals, like fluoride, which are poisonous to the dog.

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

From Doug Cross

UKCAF STRIKES AGAIN!

Blackpool's Executive Committee last night decided
to 'defer' a decision on whether or not to supply school children in
Blackpool with fluoridated 'Dental
Milk'. They cited an unpublished study by Public Health England warning that
children drinking this product had been found with 'slightly higher levels of
fluoride'. But they still believed the extraordinary claim that their children
had heard from Councillor Riding, that 'unfortunately children’s teeth in Blackpool are some of the worst in the
country'.

In fact, we at UKCAF have been working away behind
the scenes with Councillor Tony Williams, Leader of the Council's
Conservatives, to ensure that the
Labour-Dominated Committee would have to examine ALL of the evidence. Last night
we forced the issue, threatening to report the matter to the Local Government
Ombudsman if they did not. - and this is the result!

Not least of our arguments was that since milk is a
food, it's a criminal offence to claim that it has any preventive effect on
the disease of dental caries.
And we gave the Committee proof that
the official statistics on dental decay in Lancashire show that their kids
actually have teeth that are no worse
than those of kids in most of the rest of the County.

We don't know if they were surprised to hear that
the kids in St Helens, just down the coast, have been given this bogus
product for twenty years - and it
hasn't made a blind bit of difference. The official dmft/DMFT data for both
towns are virtually identical! Or perhaps they weren’t told that embarrassing
little snippet?

This decision looks very much like
face-saving- their dental public health 'experts' are still
convinced that it's the answer to kids' bad teeth, even though the Cochrane
Collaboration, the most reputable
scientific assessment group around, declared that there was no reliable evidence
that 'Dental Milk' actually works. But with reporter present to take notes of
the meeting, I guess we'll never really know what evidence was really provided -
other than our own detailed statement, of course.

In September last year UKCAF formally submitted a
complaint to the Blackpool Trading Standards Officers that the promotion of an
unlicensed medicinal product
- 'Dental Milk' (or alternatively, a
milk as a food) to the Council as having a medicinal property is an offence.
Either way, it's not looking good for
the fluoride fanatics!

Monday, January 27, 2014

Press Release

HEALTH BODY HIDES MONEY SPENT

PUBLIC HEALTH ENGLAND HAS REFUSED TO REVEAL HOW MUCH PUBLIC MONEY IT HAS SPENT PURSUING THE SCHEME TO FLUORIDATE TAP WATER IN THOUSANDS OF HAMPSHIRE HOMES.

The organisation, funded by taxpayers, has declined a request from a locally elected politician to reveal how much public money they have spent on trying to impose fluoridated tap water on an unwilling population.

It was hoped that the scheme would be dropped when Public Health England took on the role of looking after public health, following abolition of the Strategic Health Authorities, especially as legally binding contract had not been signed with Southern Water.

The matter of whether there is an "existing" scheme for them to progress seems likely to subject to yet another legal ruling. It is widely known that local Councillors representing the areas to receive the fluoridated tap water are not in favour, at least not without a referendum with a result that supports the change.

Hampshire County Councillor David Harrison, long term campaigner against fluoridation, submitted a Freedom of Information request, in an attempt to reveal how much taxpayer's money Public Health England had spent progressing matters, but the the organisation has refused to say, claiming that it isn't in the interests of good governance to do so.

Thank you for your email of 11 January 2013 in which you asked “how much public money has been spent by Public Health England [PHE] on progressing the issue of fluoride in tap water...(to include a best estimate of officers time, legal costs etc)”

Your email has been handled as a request for information under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. In accordance with Section 1(1)(a) of the Act I can confirm that PHE does not hold the information requested. PHE does not record this information; there are no officers whose work is fully devoted to the issue and legal advice is obtained from the Department of Health’s legal services.

Please note that the FOI Act only covers information held by a public authority. We are not required to create new information or to record information not needed for our own business purposes. Nor are we obliged to create a best estimate in order to respond to your request and to do so would be poor information governance.

If you have any queries regarding the information that has been supplied to you, please refer them to me in the first instance. If you are dissatisfied with this response and would like to request an internal review, then please contact Mr George Stafford at the address above or by emailing complaints@phe.gov.uk.

Please note that you have the right to an independent review by the Information Commissioner’s Office if a complaint cannot be resolved through the PHE complaints procedure. The Information Commissioner’s Office can be contacted by writing to Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely

Jonathan Bennett

Freedom of Information Officer

3.

Councillor Harrison says " When Public Health England was set up, we got all the usual promises about how open and transparent they would be in all their dealings.

This is our money they are spending and we are entitled to know the truth. The scheme isn't wanted. It never has been. It never will be. Public Health England are acting like they have a blank cheque to waste our money. It is utterly disgraceful".

Echo letters

Sunday, January 26, 2014

Today is the 69th birthday of water fluoridation – the top public health blunder of all time, reports the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF)

Instead of spreading less tooth decay across the land, fluoridation spread dental fluorosis (fluoride-discolored teeth) into every nook and cranny of America. Even though the CDC reports up to 60% of adolescents are afflicted with dental fluorosis, 51% of them have cavities.

Opposite to predictions, since fluoridation began in 1945:

Tooth decay crises occur in all fluoridated cities.

New dental professionals were created, e.g. dental therapists.

New dental schools opened.

Dental expenditures have gone up substantially, higher than the inflation rate.

Poor children's cavities are more prevalent, severe, occur earlier and more likely to be untreated.

Despite dental spending growth, 42% percent of adults and 4 million children with dental problems could not afford dental care.

US Senator Bernie Sanders, in his 2012 report, "Dental Crisis in America," says that 9,500 new dental providers are needed to meet the country's current oral health needs.

"Science and government reports prove that fluoridation is a public health blunder; but politics keeps it alive," says attorney Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President. "It's time for all Americans to demand their legislators stop adding unnecessary, health-robbing, money-wasting fluoride chemicals into their bodies via the water supply."

Fluoridation Fails as America's cavity crisis escalates For example:

BMC Oral Health reports that Kentucky, the most fluoridated state (100%) exceeds the US average for dental health problems as 13% of adults aged over 18 years are missing all of their teeth, compared to 6% nationally, placing Kentucky as the nation's highest percentage of toothless persons.....

Saturday, January 25, 2014

The Richie Allen Show: Flouride Debate

Whiteman: ‘Manipulation During Fluoride Debate’

WILLEMSTAD – The public was manipulated during the recent debate on fluoride in drinking water. This is according to the Minister of Public Health, Dr. Ben Whiteman. The Minister said that the organizers of the event, the Anti-Fluoride Committee, do not have any knowledge or understanding of the issue.

There was a public debate held in the World Trade Center on the issue of fluoride in drinking water. The committee wants the government to stop the addition of fluoride in drinking water. Whiteman said that the amount of fluoride has no effect on the health. Fluoride is good against tooth decay....

The "recent" document mentioned is 10 years old during the passing of the water bill in 2003. The MP mentioned has since been shamed over expenses. Sir John Butterfill built a servants' wing at his country home in Surrey for the gardener ... Then, as the expenses saga developed, there was a floating duck island ...
So he wasn't likely to fight fluoridation.

The failure to get fluoride through since that time demonstrated by the resistance in Southampton the power to fluoridate is now in the hands of the local councils not the NHS although they will be influencing the council members.

Friday, January 24, 2014

Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull yesterday compared anti-fluoride campaigners to people who believe they have been abducted by aliens.
Mr Cull made the comments as the council considered a staff report at yesterday's annual plan budget meeting, which outlined three options for offering non-fluoridated drinking water......

The Simcoe Muskoka District Health Unit is calling on the province to force Ontario municipalities into fluoridating community water supplies.
That request, sent in a letter to the health ministry this week, arrives as a number of communities in the region eliminate fluoride from drinking water.
“We have had our challenges in maintaining the very limited amount of fluoridation that we have,” said Dr. Charles Gardner, medical officer of health. “Only seven per cent of our population receives fluoridated water. In the past few months, we lost a substantial number of the communities that had continued it.”
The health unit has no business pursuing the issue provincially, says Coun. Andrew Hill.
“It’s about freedom of choice,” said Hill, who opposed putting fluoride in Orillia’s water. “I use fluoride rinse, but I don’t put it in my water.”
Orillia council voted against a health unit request to fluoridate the local water supply.
The decision followed a heated debate within the community over the ethics and health effects of adding the chemical to a public water supply.
With opposition to the practice emerging in communities here and across Ontario, the health unit is now urging the province to mandate its use.
“Our perspective is that this is a beneficial public health intervention and that it has been taken up to the state level in a number of countries around the world and that has resulted in … a higher percentage of the population that is receiving community water fluoridation,” Gardner said.
Upper-level governments are “better equipped to deal with the complexity, the technical aspects of it,” and are better able to “handle the politics of it as well,” he said.
“There is a lot of concerted opposition from a minority of the population that can be very discouraging to a municipal council to deal with,” he added. “The fact is, the majority of people … on survey support community water fluoridation.”
Robert J. Fleming, president of Canadians Opposed to Fluoridation, predicted the request would fall flat at Queen’s Park.
“It’s not the first time a public health unit will ask the province to mandate fluoridation for all Ontario citizens,” he said. “With great wisdom, the province has already indicated it won’t force fluoridation. After all, medicating local inhabitants through the public drinking water for the purpose of treating dental caries disease has already been struck down in a 1957 Supreme Court of Canada ruling. I’m confident the province doesn’t wish to go there.”
Tottenham – the lone community in Simcoe County to use fluoride – recently decided to eliminate it from the water supply.
Voters there will have a final say on the issue during a plebiscite in the next municipal election.
Meanwhile, two communities in the District of Muskoka – Huntsville and Lake of Bays – are discontinuing its use......................

“There is a lot of concerted opposition from a minority of the population", Yes those who have researched the subject. Naturally the majority of uninformed people in a survey will be for it especially if the question is framed in its favour.

Thursday, January 23, 2014

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

There’s a movement in Owen Sound to stop putting fluoride in the water. City council’s Operations Committee held a public meeting last night to hear both sides of the story.Those for fluoridation, like Grey Bruce Medical Officer of Health Doctor Hazel Lynn, say it’s a debate that’s long since been solved. She says fluoride reduces tooth decay and gum disease, especially for lower income people, as well as saving the health care

system big money. Those against fluoridation say it’s a matter of choice and quote studies suggesting fluoride is unhealthy.The operations committee will recommend to Owen Sound council whether to put the question of water fluoridation on the municipal election ballot next fall.

Town hall bosses are set to approve plans to introduce milk containing fluoride into Blackpool’s schools when they meet next week.

The executive committee is being recommended to accept the proposal, which would be introduced as part of the council’s free breakfasts for primary school pupils.

But the council will still speak to parents about whether they want to opt out of the scheme, with sessions due to be held during January, February and March.

Health chiefs first put forward the idea of fluoridated milk, also known as dental milk, last August to tackle high levels of tooth decay among the resort’s children.

The dental health of youngsters in the town is among the worst in the country, with more than one in three five-year-olds having at least one unhealthy tooth.

By the time they reach the age of 12, the figure increases to 43 per cent, according to official figures.

Coun Sarah Riding, cabinet member for health, said: “The issue for us is that unfortunately children’s teeth in Blackpool are some of the worst in the country.

“Introducing fluoride would not be something that happens in isolation – we would continue with all our initiatives in schools around brushing teeth etc.”

If councillors vote to go ahead with the proposals when they meet next Monday, at 6pm at the town hall, it would not be introduced until the next school year at the earliest, and parents would have the choice to opt out if they did not wish their child to have dental milk.

The scheme is not expected to cost more than it currently costs to provide regular school milk and the council is currently re-tendering for the service.

Coun Riding urged parents to attend the information sessions.

She added: “There is lots of scaremongering that goes on when changes like this are proposed, so I think it is important parents and carers of children do go along to the information sessions and find out as much as they can.”

Consultation has already taken place with headteachers who are “generally in favour” according to a report to the executive. But some campaigners have warned against the move.

Doug Cross, of UK Councils Against Fluoridation, claims there is no sound scientific evidence it would help reduce tooth decay, and says the council should invest in school dental services instead.

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

UK - House of Commons

Dental Health

Mr Virendra Sharma: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that oral health is high on the public health agenda. [183263]

Dr Poulter: Oral health remains an area of focus for public health. The Government is committed to improving oral health, particularly that of children. Significant inequalities in oral health persist despite overall reductions in decay levels.

In recognition of this, the public health outcomes framework for 2013-16 contains an indicator measuring the prevalence of tooth decay in five-year-old children in England, by local authority area.

20 Jan 2014 : Column 75W

Public Health England (PHE) is currently developing updated guidance for health care professionals on the prevention of dental disease, in the form of the third edition of “Delivering Better Oral Health”. The guidance will include specific advice regarding the provision of preventative dental advice and treatment and will be followed by a version for patients.

PHE is also developing commissioning guides in order to help local authorities exercise their responsibilities to develop oral health strategies and commissioning oral health improvement programmes. This work is led by a national steering group, “Commissioning Better Oral Health”.
Both sets of guidance will be published by May 2014.

An Owen Sound committee got an earful Monday night about the supposed benefits and dangers of continuing the city’s tradition of adding fluoride to its public water supply.

But Coun. Bill Twaddle, chairman of Owen Sound’s operations advisory committee, cautioned the roughly 70 people in attendance that city council lacks the power to simply pull the plug on the controversial practice.

“Council has no ability to make a unilateral decision,” he said during a public meeting on fluoridation at the Owen Sound & North Grey Union Public Library.

Since Owen Sound electors voted in 1997 in support of maintaining the practice, Ontario law says another plebiscite is needed — with the opposite result — before it can end.

City council only has the power to force another referendum to coincide with a municipal election. In order to add the question — should Owen Sound stop adding fluoride to its water — to the ballot during this year’s vote, council must approve a bylaw by April 30.

“There’s only one option open to us,” Twaddle said. “That’s the circumstance we find ourselves in.”

The operations committee is scheduled to meet Feb. 19 to discuss what was said at the public meeting and decide if it will recommend that city council approve holding a plebiscite in October.

If it does, council is to consider the recommendation in March, Twaddle said.

Residents can also force the referendum by collecting the signatures of at least 10% of Owen Sound voters on a petition in support of the plebiscite and presenting it to city hall by June 1.

Owen Sound is the only municipality in Grey-Bruce that adds fluoride to its drinking water. It has been doing so since 1965.......

Monday, January 20, 2014

IT’S INDEPENDENCE DAY!

As from today, water fluoridation
must be prohibited

in all Member States of the
EC

20th January 2014

For years the British
and Irish governments have wriggled around the food and medicine laws in order
to continue fluoridation, They claim it's a food, and that it complies with the
quality standards set by the Drinking Water Directive. (It's not - the Directive
doesn't apply to any 'medicinal water', but let's run with this for a
moment.)

At midnight last
night (19th January 2014) the last loophole in the food laws of the EC was
slammed shut, when the deadline for using an unconventional chemical source
materials for any mineral added to food finally expired. It is now not possible
to argue that fluoridated water is still regulated under food and water law,
like real potable water.

In both EC and English
law fluoride is listed as a mineral. EC Regulation 1925/2006 lists all of those
chemicals that are authorised to be used to add a 'mineral' to any food.
FLuoridation chemicals are not authorised, but back in 2006 the European
Parliament left a loophole that would have allowed the British of the Irish
governments to get permission to continue fluoridation after the deadline
expired, had they followed the proper procedures. Application to continue to
use fthese unorthodox chemicals in foods were permissible until 10th January
2010, but remarkably, neither government submitted one. Had they done so, they
could have argued for fluoridated water is a legitimate food until 19th January
2014 - that's last night.

So as from today, the
addition of fluorosilicic acid to any food is completely prohibited banned
throughout the entire European Community, and our rogue governments can no
longer claim that fluoridated is a food. As Lord Jauncey, David Shaw and I have
argued, it's a medicine, and since it's unlicensed for medicinal use, its supply
to us, the public, is illegal.

The legal and
commercial implications of this are enormous. Any EC Member State can now refuse
to allow the importation of any food that has been prepared - or even
just washed - with fluoridated water,during its processing. This includes a
potential ban on any foods from States outside the EC, such as Australia, New
Zealand, the USA and many other countries that allow the contamination of public
water supplies with this illegal ingredient.

For the full story, go
to https://www.ukcaf.org/independence_day.html Then
pass the PDF to your Local Authority, your MP, your MEP, and any others who are
concerned for the enforcement of those laws that have been passed to protect us
from fake medicines and contaminated foods..

Ratepayers could be asked to pick up a six-figure bill if the Dunedin City Council opts to provide an alternative, non-fluoridated water supply for those wanting to avoid the chemical.
Options for offering alternative, non-fluoridated drinking water would be considered by councillors at this week's annual plan budget meeting, beginning on Thursday.
A council staff report to the meeting outlined three options for providing the service, ranging from encouraging people to buy filters for their homes, to more expensive filtered public tap supplies at locations around the city.
Encouraging ''point of use'' filters would allow those wanting to avoid fluoridated water to do so, by buying under-bench filters for their homes, the report by council water and waste services asset strategy team leader Tom Dyer said.
The filters cost between $100 and $400 each, and claimed to effectively remove between 90%-100% of fluoride, as well as other impurities, he said.
The council could also consider offering a subsidy as part of efforts to promote their use, he said.
The second option would be to invest in one or more public water taps, filtered to remove fluoride as the ''Speight's tap'' already was, at locations around the city, he said.
However, ''appropriate'' traffic management, access and parking arrangements would be needed, meaning each site could cost the council $15,000-$25,000 to establish and about $7500 a year to operate, he said.
The council would also need to give ''careful consideration'' to the level of serve required across the city, he said. An even spread of public taps - for example allowing each property in the city to be within 10km of a tap - would require about six taps to be installed, he said.
That would mean a total capital cost of up to $150,000, and annual operating costs of $45,000, for the council, he said. The third option was to install alternative, non-fluoridated taps at the Mt Grand and Southern water treatment plants, by diverting some of the flow through the plants before fluoride was added.
That, too, would come at a cost, estimated to be $40,000-$50,000 per site and annual operating costs of $6500 per site, he said.
Council staff have been considering the issue since last year's annual plan meetings, when councillors voted to ask staff to investigate options for a non-fluoridated drinking water supply.
That move came after the council received 34 public submissions on fluoride - more than any other subject - with most concerned the chemical was being added to drinking water for oral health benefits.

Daft idea, cheaper to hand out free toothpaste to those who can't afford it.

Saturday, January 18, 2014

Oh dear - here we go again! Drinking water is a food. Adding fluorosilicic acid
to any food to increase its fluoride level has been prohibited under EU food law
since 2010. The UK government failed to apply for special permission to continue
using this illegal ingredient to drinking water by that date. So continuing to
argue interminable over whether or not there is an existing 'agreement' with the
Water Company is yet more time-wasting - this can easily be reinstated by PHE
anyway.Why do
not the Hampire Councils instead all get together and ask their Trading
Standards Officers (and lawyers) to take a closer look at the legislation that
actually forbids this practice?Remember this -
fluoridated water is NOT drinking king water - it's a 'medicinal water. As such its
quality is NOT subject to control under the Drinking Water Directive. So
substituting fluoridated water for drinking water takes away all of the
protection for consumers afforded by that Directive. Are we really certain that
we want to allow this alternative product to be delivered to our homes?Stop
procrastinating - English law is in conflict with European law, so demand that
it be brought in line. That way, PHE will be forced to drop this lunatic scheme,
and there can be no further arguments, anywhere!

Fluoride dispute could go to court

The long-running battle over plans to add fluoride to domestic water supplies in and around Southampton could be heading for a showdown in court.Hampshire councils and the Government’s health agency are at odds over the controversial scheme.Plans to put fluoride into the tap water of 200,000 residents in parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams were given the go-ahead in 2009.

The plans, which were initiated by the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA), sparked fierce resistance from campaigners.They say there are unanswered questions over the health issues around drinking fluoride in tap water and that the people affected should be the ones to decide whether it is introduced or not.

The SHA, which was axed by the Government last year, had always argued introducing it would benefit public health and its successor organisation Public Health England (PHE) had vowed to plough on with the plans. But following legal advice, Hampshire County Council leader Roy Perry and Southampton City Council boss Simon Letts believe the scheme no longer exists due to the SHA’s failure to hand over vital documents to its sucessor the PHE.

They have been waiting for five months to find out what the Government and PHE’s appraisal of the situation was. This week, PHE chiefs announced that although the paperwork was not completed, they still believed the fluoridation scheme existed.

Now, with neither side willing to budge, they are set for a legal battle.

Southampton City Council leader, Simon Letts, said: “There are two legal views about fluoridation. Until those legal points are tested in a court, we will be no further forward.”

He said fluoridation would not go ahead without a court ruling “At the very least, this has given us time to assess all of our options and even if a court eventually rules against us, I have already told PHE that a referendum should be held to determine whether it happens or not,” he said. A spokesman for PHE would not confirm the threat of legal action, saying instead: “PHE is committed to working with partners on the key issue of oral health improvement, including the role of water fluoridation.

“PHE continues to give full and careful consideration to all the relevant factors relating to water fluoridation in Southampton and SW Hampshire and is still considering its position in relation to the scheme.”

Friday, January 17, 2014

The letter to the editor in The Meadville Tribune written by Dr. Christopher G. Knapp on Dec. 7, 2013, implies that the Meadville Area Water Authority (MAWA) is considering introducing fluoride into the drinking water system. If this is the case then both the members of MAWA and the public affected by the introduction of fluoride should be aware of the some facts about fluoride. First we’ll concentrate on the business end and then on the health issues.

Is MAWA really considering the introduction of fluoride without asking its customers if they want it? Would it not be wise to have the approval of the customers? The customers affected by the introduction of fluoride consists not only of the residents of the City of Meadville but also some residents of Vernon, West Mead and Woodcock townships and county residents who work in these municipalities and patronize local restaurants.

Fluoride costs money, and from my own experience with purchasing chlorine, I won’t doubt that its price will be fixed by the producers. This was the problem that I encountered when as the assistant engineer of the City of Meadville I prepared bids to purchase chlorine. There would not be any competition in pricing. Adding fluoride would be an additional cost that the consumers will have to absorb whether they like it or not.

If fluoride is introduced there would be many individuals who will switch to bottled water for drinking because they will refuse to have a contaminant forced, literally, down their throat. The other factor to consider is that there will be millions of gallons of fluoridated water going to waste and will never reach the intended targets — customers’ teeth.

Water is used for line flushing, toilet flushing, fire suppression, car washing, bathing, etc. In 2013 the Minister of Health of Israel, Yael German, signed a new regulation eliminating fluoridation. Her reason: only 2 percent of water is used for drinking by the population, with the rest used for dishwashing, bathing, industry and other uses. Does it really make business sense to introduce fluoride into the drinking water on the premise that there might be health benefits for some?

Another factor to keep in mind before making a business decision is that according to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), there is enough data that indicates that fluoride exposure levels among the population have increased in the last 40 to 50 years from several other sources such as dental products (toothpaste and mouth rinses), prescription fluoride supplements, fluoride applied by dental professionals and dietary sources such as food and beverages made with fluoridated water.

What are the health benefits? Fluoride is not a supplement such as vitamins or minerals but it is a contaminant regulated as such.

Both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) consider fluoride a contaminant. The definition of “contaminant” in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is: pollutant, toxin, poison, chemical or a waste product. Both agencies disagreed on the maximum level of this pollutant that should be allowed in the water. The HHS believes that the max should be 0.7mg/L, the EPA 4.0 mg/L and our own DEP set the standard at 2.0 mg/L. Should the public feel assured that their health is actually safeguarded when governmental agencies cannot agree on a safe dosage of fluoride in the drinking water?

It also appears that the U.S. is one of the few nations in the world that still believes that fluoride is the magic answer for healthy teeth, whereas most of the European nations have eliminated fluoride in public water systems.

Dr. Arvid Carlsson, the 2000 Nobel Laureate in medicine and physiology and one of the scientists who helped keep fluoridation out of Sweden, considers fluoride a drug and as such he believes it should only be made available through a doctor when it is truly needed. Carlsson’s conclusions go hand-in-hand with those of Dr. Weston Price, who was a dentist from Cleveland. At the end of his practice, Price embarked on a research journey around the world to find out “what was a healthy diet” and what caused tooth decay. His findings laid the groundwork for proper nutrition and cavity-free teeth. His book, “Nutrition and Physical Degeneration,” concluded that healthy nutrition is the answer for healthy teeth. His words on fluoride: “Fluorine treatment, like dental extractions, cannot be a panacea for dental caries.”

German also stated, “It must be known to you that fluoridation can cause harm to the health of the chronically ill and pregnant women.” The EPA also determined that exposure to excessive consumption of fluoride over a lifetime may lead to increased likelihood of bone fractures in adults and may result in effects on bone, leading to pain and tenderness. Excessive fluoride could also cause dental fluorosis (mottling of tooth enamel).

It appears to me that the U.S is going through what I call the Obamacare syndrome, whereas someone comes up with a grandiose idea of how to improve everyone’s health by forcing all of us to accept what they think is good. Water companies spend a considerable amount of money to remove pollutants from the drinking water. Why add one? Why not let the dentists decide what is good for each of their patients instead of “one size fits all?”

Luigi DeFrancesco is a Richmond Township resident and former assistant engineer for the City of Meadville.

UK - Echo letter

Thursday, January 16, 2014

UK - Southampton Echo letters

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Story at-a-glance
Industry-funded studies on the connection between sugar-sweetened beverages and obesity are likely to be biased in favor of industry
In studies without industry support, 83 percent linked sugary beverages with weight gain
In studies with industry support, 83 percent found no link between sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain
77 percent of food items in US grocery stores contain added sugar that is addictive and linked to chronic disease when consumed in excess
If you want to protect your health, replace sugar-laden processed foods and beverages with pure water and homemade meals, made from scratch using whole ingredients.

Use of compound ‘reckless’ says witness
Toxic Fluoride
Jeff Mitchell / MetrolandDURHAM -- Whitby resident Russell Brown took Durham Region to small claims court, seeking to have the municipality pay for a filtration system he used to remove fluoride from his water. The father of two claims fluoride is a toxic substance. January 10, 2013.
Brock Citizen
By Jeff Mitchell
(DURHAM REGION) It is “reckless” for the Region of Durham to supplement its drinking water supply with fluoride, an expert witness has testified.

Dr. Connett, who has co-authored a book on the issue, was testifying in support of a suit filed in small claims court by Whitby resident Russell Brown. He’s suing the Region to recover the cost of a filtration system he uses to remove fluoride from his drinking water.

While the amount of the claim -- about $900 -- is relatively low, the issue it represents is significantly larger: Mr. Brown’s ultimate goal is to coax the Region to stop adding a fluoride compound that he says is a byproduct of fertilizer production to the community’s drinking water.
“It’s to make them accountable,” the 45-year-old father of two said outside an Oshawa courtroom.
“This is a toxic waste substance -- it causes harm.”
The Region rejects the assertions in Mr. Brown’s suit, and is contesting his claim for damages.
On Friday, Regional lawyer Rajeshree Sanichara suggested Dr. Connett is making unfounded claims about Durham’s water without having data to back those claims up. Dr. Connett said fluoride affects IQ levels in children and can, when ingested in excess, cause damage to teeth and bones.

“I put it to you that you can’t say the Region of Durham’s water is not safe if you haven’t tested it,” Ms. Sanichara said.
But Dr. Connett insisted the benefits of fluoridation -- it’s added to combat tooth decay -- pale in comparison to the health risks. “If you want fluoride, you can brush it on your teeth,” he said.
“There is no reason to swallow fluoride.”
Mr. Brown and his supporters, some of whom are members of Free Durham From Fluoride, came armed with statistics and legislation they say support their claim that Durham’s fluoridation program is in contravention of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
What they lacked in polish -- Mr. Brown was represented by Robert Fleming, a former police officer who stepped in at the last moment to conduct the case -- they made up for with earnestness. Deputy Judge W. Mark Burch repeatedly and patiently reminded Mr. Fleming to stick to the question at hand: Has Mr. Brown made out his case that he has suffered damages for which he ought to be compensated?

The Region has yet to present reply evidence. The trial resumes in May.

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

In the 1930s, American scientists and public health researchers made a simple, but profoundly important discovery. People living in towns with around one part per million of fluoride found naturally in their drinking water had much less tooth decay that people whose drinking water contained lower levels of fluoride.

All water supplies contain fluoride, but the levels can vary significantly. At the time, tooth decay in Western countries was a greater public health problem than today, and most people wore false teeth from early adulthood..............................Dr Karin Alexander is the Federal President of the Australian Dental Association Inc.A long article about the wonders of fluoride the comments underneath are more informed.

Here is a list of 13 Nobel Prize winners in chemistry and medical science who opposed fluoridation. Surely we can trust some of their expertise on this subject. http://fluoridealert.org/content/nobel_winners/ People everywhere are learning the truth that fluoridation is ineffective for teeth and dangerous to health, so only 5% of the world and only 3% of Europe fluoridate their drinking water. Last July Israel banned it. To see why, Google "Fluoride dangers" and read a few of the 800,000 articles.

Posted by jwillie6.14/01/2014 09:49:19 AM

Alexander refers to the National Oral Health Plan (2004) advocating fluoridation for all towns. This is a typical example of how fluoridation is promoted. You go to that document and you see that it only has two (yes, 2!) references about fluoridation. Those two papers are poor quality and out-of-date journal articles. One of them in fact references the other as its source of authority. It is a shambles. Alexander fails to take account of the many, many examples of countries around the world that achieve excellent results in dental health (low decay rates) without recourse to water fluoridation. For example: Netherlands, France, Germany, Japan, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland ... I could go on and on. Very few countries do practice fluoridation. It is utterly unnecessary. And fluoridation certainly poses a risk to the health of some consumers - unfortunately there is still insufficient research to say exactly how many are harmed in a significant way. I have certainly met a number of fluoride victims who suffer awful, reactive health effects when they consume any fluoridated water. Life is hell for these individuals.

Posted by David McRae.14/01/2014 11:10:03 AM

Dr. Alexander recounts a fantastical tale worthy of the tooth fairy. The principle that she throws under the bus is that it's unethical to administer blanket treatment without the informed consent of those being treated. That the dental profession is willing to disregard this most fundamental health care ethic says nothing good about their competence or their integrity. The claims she makes about safety and efficacy are not simply out of date, they are entirely bogus and always have been. Fluoridation is unethical, unhealthy, unscientific, untruthful and a complete waste of public funds.

Posted by Janet Nagel.14/01/2014 12:01:10 PM

If you look at the Material Safety Data Sheet for Flouride, (as Sodium Flouride) you see that it is toxic. http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927595 In small concentrations over a single use it is digestable without any noticable effects. But the long term effects can be significant. None of the studies you refer to mention the dental benefits of it versus the long term health impacts.

Monday, January 13, 2014

CR Lisa Intemann set the agenda for a future debate about the fluoridation of the Hastings water supply, when she declared at the December meeting of Port Macquarie-Hastings Council that the matter will be addressed before the next local government election.

The issue was raised by Cr Mike Cusato, who was supported by Cr Intemann and deputy mayor Cr Adam Roberts, in opposing the acceptance of tenders from three suppliers for the transport of chemicals to the water treatment and fluoridation plants at Wauchope on the grounds they do not support the dosing of the local drinking water supply with hydrofluorsilicic acid.

Council accepted tenders for the supply and delivery of chemicals for Hastings water and sewer operations for the next 12 months from Omega Chemicals (liquid aluminium); Orica Chemicals (sodium hypochlorite, hydrated lime and hydroflurosilicic acid) and Air Liquide Australia (carbon dioxide).

The fluoridation of the Hastings water supply commenced in February 2012 under the Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies Act 1957 following a NSW government directive. The fluoridation of the water supply has been hotly debated in the region since the 1980s with more than 20,500 residents opposing the move in a community poll staged in conjunction with the 1991 local government elections. The issue was not raised again until 2004 when the Mid North Coast Area Health Service hosted discussions with regional council's on dental decay on the Mid-North Coast.

With the support of the NSW Cancer Council, Australian Dental Association and state government members, council resolved to put the issue of fluoridating the local water supply to the NSW Department of Health.

In 2010, council signed a $1.78 million funding agreement with the NSW government for the construction of a fully equipped fluoridation plant at Wauchope under the condition that it would repay the amount if fluoridation did not commence, or was discontinued, within a period of 15 years.

Prior to her election to council in September 2012, where a 4000 signature strong petition to hold a community poll was deferred for consideration by the new council by administrator Neil Porter, Cr Intemann was an outspoken opponent of fluoridation. Anti-fluoride advocates petitioned and rallied council, established the Fluoride Action Network and fuelled an online campaign to block the decision to proceed with what they claim to be the poisoning the water supply.

"The benefits of fluoridating the public water supply is a myth and unsupported by science," Cr Intemann told her fellow councillors. "I have followed this matter for quite some years and am confident that in not too many years to come, we will realise it was a mistake to put a chemical in our water supply and in our food chain that is a biological toxin. "I am concerned about the effects this will have on our children. The world as a general rule has abandoned this notion."

Cr Intemann said the time will come during this term of council to debate the issue. While she admits it is a "very tricky issue" and one the state government needs to be made accountable, she will consider pushing for a community poll as a possibility at the next council election.
"Our government has avoided its responsibility to the dental care of this nation," she said. "During this term of council we will address this in an adult manner."
Cr Justin Levido said council must remember its responsibility to the contract it signed with the state government.

"This council is subject to a state government order to put fluoride in our water supply. This is a state government issue," Cr Levido said. "If they give us the option not to put it in our water supply, then so be it."